Genome: The Autobiography Of Species In 23 Chapters: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters

Product Information

It is only because we know what happens when the gene is missing or mutated that we think of it as a “disease gene. The hypocritical chapter on eugenics, which decries the practice despite being sandwiched between two chapters implicitly defending it, is likely to annoy even people who don't particularly care about gender issues, and any remaining patience I had for Ridley he lost when he quoted Gould on IQ. Ridley also describes genetic studies of different types of peoples to isolate why people developed a mutation allowing adults to digest lactase in adulthood. Richard Dawkins's concept of the " selfish gene" is described by Ridley through a discussion of retrotransposons. Ridley is a lucid, engaging and enthusiastic guide to the double-helical DNA that comprises our inheritable human essence.

I feel the author did this in an attempt to cover too many topics and round the book with a nice conclusion, one that wasn't needed. As for the science, much of it seemed outdated, this book being almost two decades old, and the field of human genetics so quickly changing. Mukherjee and Kean focus a lot on the history, while Ridley stays more on the science and less about the history.This fascinating journey shows the influence of genes, from condemning us to diseases to influencing our intelligence and guiding the development of our bodies and brains. Because gene mutations (changes in the base sequence) often have two separate effects, one beneficial and one harmful. Suffice it to say that Ridley's talent for writing genetic science is not matched by his writing about current genomic science. When my father died a couple months later I was left with reams of genealogical records that my mother had collected before she died.

There's an interesting parallel I think between science writing like this which acknowledges "environmental factors' but leaves them as extremely vague, amorphous and subject to filling with whatever a particular thinker or conceptual paradigm requires, and those who consider such questions as occur around socioeconomics, ideology, material poverty etc.

Quite a lot of the stuff in this book has been covered in other books I have read, most notably by Richard Dawkins, however the writing was fresh and I learned a hell of a lot of stuff throughout this book.

Part of the problem is the numerous minor details that are brought up and then discarded as we move on to the next subject. The reader is not left feeling like an insider to the world of science, but a very appreciative outsider. Bryson doesn’t pretend to be any kind of expert; rather, his journalistic background has honed his appreciation for the fascinating backstory, the compelling character, the revealing tidbit.Kean is a great storyteller, while Mukherjee tries hard to make a grand philosophical message, which falls flat, in my opinion, compared to Ridley. This level of detail may add some texture, but as a generalist I think you only want as much detail as makes the topic fun to learn about, and then to focus on getting the big ideas across.